Image Credits: @huefnerdesign on Unsplash (Unsplash License)

Juvenile life without parole cases have garnered ample media attention and encouraged recent legislative reform nationwide. The United States is the only country in the world that sanctions life sentences without parole for crimes committed by offenders under the age of 18. Currently, 25 states (and the District of Columbia) prohibit sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole, though nine states do not have Juvenile Life without Parole (“JLWOP”) offenders serving as of May 2021. “Approximately 2,600 inmates nationwide currently serve life sentences without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles.” 

The Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of The Constitution mostly applies to JLWOP cases, and the Supreme Court has focused on its interpretation of the amendment when deciding related cases for the past 20 years. It dictates, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Using this directive as a guide, significant progress has been made, limiting the severity of the sentences administered to juvenile offenders.

Relevant Supreme Court Cases

In the last 20 years, the Supreme Court has established powerful precedent in JLWOP cases. These decisions have ushered in a new era of swift policy adaptations and the development of new legislation pertaining to juveniles. 

The first of these cases came in the 2005 decision for Roper v. Simmons. This breakthrough case reached the Supreme Court after a series of repeal rejections on behalf of Christopher Simmons. At the age of just 17, Simmons was sentenced to the death penalty, following the abduction and murder of 46-year-old Shirley Crook. After reviewing the case extensively, the Rehnquist Court decided the execution of minors violates the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. In its decision, the Court took into consideration widespread international opposition of the usage of the death penalty on minors. 

A second precedent was a result of the 2010 decision in Graham v. Florida. At the age of 16, Terrence Graham was charged with armed burglary and attempted armed robbery. After serving a one-year sentence, a Florida state court convicted him of armed home robbery. Following the incident, he was granted a life sentence without parole and consequently pursued various appeals, citing the Eighth Amendment. After much deliberation, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment protects non-homicidal juvenile offenders from a life sentence without parole. Thus, this ruling effectively reversed the lower court’s decision which hadn’t found the sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

A third momentous decision came in Miller v. Alabama (2012). In July 2003, Evan Miller and Colby Smith killed Cole Cannon with a baseball bat, in the process of an arson. Evan was a 14-year-old juvenile at the time of the offense. Nonetheless, he was tried as an adult for capital murder during an arson and sentenced to a mandatory term of life without the possibility of parole. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where justices were again asked to address whether a life without parole sentence for a juvenile violates the Eighth Amendment protection against Cruel and Unusual Punishment. In a 5-4 decision, the Court affirmed that the Eighth Amendment safeguards juvenile homicide offenders from mandatory life sentences. The Court’s decision indicated that a life sentence may be appropriate for adults, but not for children as they are held to a standard of “lesser culpability,” or responsibility for criminal conduct. It is also important to note that Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) refined Miller, banning life without parole “for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility.” The term incorrigibility refers to the inability to refine, improve, or remedy an individual’s conduct. Up to this point, the Court established strong precedent that favored punishment reduction for juvenile offenders; however, this trend was interrupted in early 2021.

Most Recent Supreme Court Precedent 

In April 2021, the Supreme Court issued its most recent ruling regarding JLWOP for homicidal offenders, in Jones v. Mississippi (2021). 15-year-old Brett Jones stabbed his grandfather to death and received a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole, under Mississippi law. Upon appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the original decision and reinforced the young man’s sentence. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining if the Eighth Amendment requires a juvenile to be deemed permanently incorrigible in order to receive a life sentence without parole. The Court utilized Miller v. Alabama as its primary precedent, a case that established that the Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory life sentences for juveniles. Thus, one might expect the Court to rule in favor of Jones. However, the Court adjudicated in favor of the state of Mississippi instead, claiming that “a finding of fact regarding a child’s incorrigibility…is not required” when determining if a juvenile is worthy of a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole.

The above case illustrates a notable shift from earlier cases in which the Court supported more leniency for juvenile offenders at risk of serving life without parole. The fact that a majority of these cases (excluding Roper v. Simmons) have been decided within the past 11 years is significant, as the same five justices have overseen each decision (John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito). Justice Elena Kagan joined the Supreme Court in time for Miller v. Alabama (2012) and has generally supported greater leniency for juvenile offenders. The three new justices appointed during the Trump administration (Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh), have turned the tide and indicated their resistance to increasing leniency for juvenile offenders. 

This suggests that perhaps a shift in the political balance within the Court coincides with the shift in the Court’s JLWOP position. Based on the most recent ruling in Jones v. Mississippi, additional decisions concerning JLWOP in the near future will likely present less leniency, towards violent juvenile offenders. 

Future Implications

Without a uniform message from the Supreme Court, JLWOP legislation will continue to vary nationwide, left to the discretion of individual states. With large variations in the treatment of juvenile offenders and the severity of the sentences expected, the Court will eventually be called to establish more concrete guidelines. Thus, going forward, we will likely see further division within the Supreme Court, with states taking matters into their own hands and addressing their own JLWOP legislation. Many states have recently updated their laws pertaining to what age juveniles can be tried as adults, or outside of the family divisions of circuit courts. For example, Michigan has yet to ban JLWOP, but the state’s juvenile law code has been updated to reflect that individuals under 18 must have their cases transferred to a Michigan family court, rather than under 17 (effective October 1^st, 2021). Despite this very slight change, there seems to be a nationwide legislative shift in favor of juvenile offenders. While all eyes are on the Supreme Court to determine the uncertain future related legislature, there has been a gradual shift in the limitation of JLWOP inmates. Many offenders are having their sentences reviewed or have already received a lesser sentence. As of May 2021, nine states have not fully prohibited JLWOP but do not currently have any inmates who meet this description. 

Several legal organizations such as the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth (CFSY), The Sentencing Project, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) advocate banning juvenile life sentences without parole, encourage reform, and consistently file amicus briefs supporting juvenile offenders. The focus of these organizations are the childhood experiences of inmates facing JLWOP, who have disproportionally experienced violence at home, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and racial animosity growing up. 
Though related Supreme Court rulings will continue to impact JLWOP in the U.S., all eyes are truly on the states, who will continue to limit the application of JLWOP or ban the practice altogether. General public opinion tends to favor juvenile offenders, disapproving of perpetual sentences for crimes committed before adulthood and supporting rehabilitation as a healthy alternative of lifelong imprisonment. Echoing this sentiment, The Sentencing Project argues, “Sentences that close the door on rehabilitation and second chances are cruel and misguided.”